Thursday, August 28, 2008 |
|
NYTimes: Clinton/Biden telling fibs... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
10:47 AM |
Lips moving, lies coming! According to brand new census data, some actual truthful reporting from the New York Times, we know for certain that former President Clinton was not being truthful in his speech last night - particularly on the economic factors. The former president spoke of a worsening economy, and he made the argument that people were earning less. But it was just flatulence of the mouth as the Census Bureau released its newest findings yesterday. For the third year in a row the median income for families has INCREASED! Another 1.3%... The same data also found that Joe Biden was not being honest in his speech last night when he touched on health care. The number of people without coverage DROPPED in the latest numbers by more than a million. And the uninsured percentage rate dropped from 15.9%-15.3%. MEANING: 84.7% of Americans are satisfactorily insured. I'm part of the 15.3% presently, but I do NOT, repeat, I DO NOT WANT the government to give it to me. It's my job to get it, and we will - but I don't want to tax YOU to be able to get it.
|
|
|
Thursday, August 28, 2008 |
|
Messiah arrives speaks, remains disconnected from reality... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
9:52 AM |
After receiving his party's nomination by a special act of affirmative action earlier in the day, Barack Obama popped on to stage to squeals of the long suffering conventioners that were nearly ready to poke their eyes out from the boredom of Joe Biden's acceptance speech!
If Biden is supposed to bolster the ticket - expect yet another dip in the overnight tracking polls tomorrow. And not only was Biden boring he took on the role of attack dog pathetically...
Biden ran down a list of Obama's "legislative record" which afterwards - even left-leaning Nina Easton admitted, "this makes Obama's thin record" look even worse."
Then Biden went beyond the pale in repeated questioning of John McCain's judgment. I have questioned McCain's methods, and his temper, but I've never questioned his desire to see what was best for America be at the fore of his rationale for the "why" he did what he did.
I think it is a tremendously overplayed mistake for Biden to "go there." And that fundamentally it shows a desperation of a ticket that by all mathematical equations should be light-years ahead in this race, but is actually struggling to stay even.
Disagreement with McCain's ideas should be how they go about selling themselves. Attacking McCain's judgment and thereby his character is just a losing proposition. Especially since you can guarantee there will be massive tribute to his painful sacrifice to his nation in the GOP meetings coming up next week.
Clinton was the toughest nugget of the night, unfortunately for Obama he did not appear in the 10pm hour which was carried by the networks.
Instead we got a national helping of the Senator so boring I wanted to stab my hand with a fork just to prove to myself that I was still awake...
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 |
|
Affirmative Action: Nomination Style |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
7:18 PM |
 He couldn't have done it without her... Did Hillary just attempt to secure her spot on the United States Supreme Court? Perhaps so. In one of the most unsurprising moments in the convention - given that the plan had been leaked to the media since SUNDAY that she would do it - Hillary Clinton called for the suspension of the count, and the affirmation of Barack Obama to be the nominee by voice vote. She had more votes cast for her. She had more supporters, and depending on how Florida and Michigan would've gone in the actual count, she could have had more votes on the floor at the convention. Knowing that Hillary doesn't do anything without triangulating something out of the deal for herself, one has to wonder - WHAT did she get? And WHEN does she get it? History in the making indeed, but isn't it sad - that it wasn't done the way every other Democratic nominee has been nominated in this brief century - or the previous? Even when I was the first pundit to predict that Obama would be the nominee - I never believed it would come down to hi-jinx, smoke-filled rooms, and the promise of Hillary looming large in the Supreme Court's future... It's actually a pretty slimy way for a man who is a descendant of several races to be back-doored into the nomination...
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 |
|
"Move over boy, Mama's talkin' now!" |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
12:06 AM |
 18 million votes peeps! 10 generic mentions of Obama, and all of them attached to her own accomplishments. She toted him around like Paris Hilton does her purse puppy.
She also rubbed his nose in his poo and put him back in his cage.
Hillary showed to the world tonight quite likely why she might have HAD more actual votes in the Democratic primary than Obama did. But aside from a couple of glancing blows (not head on collisions) on the "possible policies" of John McCain she did nothing to help her ticket at all.
Look its easy to come out and repeat the written script from the teleprompter that says "I support Barack Obama."
But in very Clintonian style and ease, Hillary just set herself up for the 2012 run when she very covertly helps the Obamas NOT make history in 2008.
End of story...
|
|
|
Sunday, June 08, 2008 |
|
Happy to not have to see this anymore... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
12:01 AM |
 The question now becomes though... did all the nasty things she said about Obama suddenly become not true today? Experience, Corruption, Judgment, Does Obama now suddenly possess these qualities to Hillary's supporters? Personally - I don't think she wants, nor will work in earnest for Obama to win. His failure is her last chance to return to the main stage... And one thing we all have come to learn about the Clintons... they don't like someone else sucking up their oxygen.
|
|
|
Monday, May 19, 2008 |
|
The "saddest" of all... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
2:07 PM |
 and the yentas mourned... So I'm laying in bed just checking a couple of things before I call it a night, when the Lovely Bride starts getting superiorly indignant. She did so at what had to be one of the dumbest things that MSNBC has ever posted... Just check some of the quotes... First from the elderly: "It would hurt my feelings a lot because I think she should be No. 1, she should be president," Heintzman said of Clinton's likely loss to Barack Obama. "Give a woman a chance to do something good."
From the not quite lucid: "For us, getting a woman elected is major," said Laurine Glynn, 72, of New York City. "We've waited, fought a lot for this. I do worry that my generation won't see a female president."
From the delusional: "Women are feeling a lot of sadness, disappointment and some anger as they look back at what happened in this race," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.
From those whose Geritol needs to be doubled: Paula Horwitz, 84, of Pittsburgh, said some younger women "just don't understand. They'll elect a man, and the men will keep on telling the women what to do."
The School of the slightly obvious: "What Hillary has done — win, lose or draw — has permanently changed the picture," says Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, which trains women to run for office. "Next time, we're not going to have to prove that the public will vote for a woman. We won't have to prove competency. She has succeeded at that level."
From the school of tough luck: "It will still be rough for women to come after her," she says. "They'll have to walk that balance of being strong and tough, compassionate and soft. When you're tough, you're called shrill, and the B-word. When you mist over, they say you're weeping."From the... oh who the heck cares... "It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That's a pretty scary thing," says Hirshman. "She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable."
So a few questions... Should a president be elected so as to not hurt some South Dakotan 81 year olds feelings? Is the greatest thing this next generation has to worry about is not seeing a female president? (Where does terrorism, economy, and social standards rank?) Was this race really that bad in the Democratic Primary? Seems to me there is a bit of history of bad blood in Democratic Primaries. And actually this seemed tame to me... Where are these men that get to tell women what to do? Let's just say I need to find them, I've got a former boss or two I wouldn't mind turning them loose on. What did that one quote above mean that the next female candidate won't have to prove competency? (Are they planning on tricking us and nominating morons?) And shouldn't ALL candidates, head into candidate believing that voters will divide normally way..? Bonus parting question: Does two "x" chromosome guarantee some mysterious part of the electorate?
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
(Video) From the book, "STUPID Liberals ALWAYS do the same thing..." |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
10:23 PM |
|
Personally I find it stunning that they never learn.
Whenever Bush makes a speech, even if he doesn't refer to them, name their names, say anything about them... they jump up and say, "I am NOT they way you describe me to be!!!!!!"
Have you ever noticed?
Like when the President uttered the words in the State of the Union referring to the fact that Iraq had sought uranium in AFRICA? Immediately that weekend Joe Wilson the mint julep queen goes on Andrea Mitchell, and starts talking about how the President was referring to his trip to NIGER. (Last I checked Africa is a wee bit bigger than Niger.)
Yesterday the President makes a comment that could have included most of Western Europe, ALL of Eastern Europe, and God only knows who else across the spectrum. He could have been referring to the Arab nations even neighboring Israel - the nation to whom he was speaking. He NEVER mentioned Barack Obama, The United States, or the Democratic Party... so what do American liberals do?
They blow their lids. Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, and Obama's nasty-faced campaign staffers ALL run out like spoiled brats screaming at television cameras, "HOW DARE HE TALK ABOUT US THAT WAY?"
They were indignant, insufferable, indiscreet, and very unintelligent in their presentations. Even television liberals - who sometimes (not often) still actually check the text of speeches - had drank the kool-aid, and then tried to say Bush HAD referred to Obama by citing his Press Secretary DENYING that he had referred to Obama. How the heck does that even work?
"Bush referred to Obama..."
"Where in his text did he refer to Obama?"
"No where he just was..."
"Sorry but the language of his speech doesn't refer to any person specifically..."
"Yeah but he was referring to Obama."
"No I don't believe he referred to anyone specifically."
"SEE YOU JUST DENIED IT - that PROVES he was referring to Obama..."
Then you add to that the Pelosi presser, the Clinton presser, and the nasty-face Obama campaign staffers all out there snarling - telling everyone how "beneath the dignity of the office" it was for Bush to attack Obama - on foreign soil. (To which he did not...)
And the foreign soil thing comes up... See - when the Dixie Chicks stand on stage somewhere and they actually NAME the President, and the United States, and actually, specifically refer to our foreign policy as being an embarrassment - that is the textbook definition of being unpatriotic. Now they all wanna say Bush did the same thing, but with no references to the United States, Barack Obama, the US' foreign policy - or anything even remotely resembling an attack on another U.S. Citizen, elected official, or even candidate.
Can SOMEONE PLEASE explain to me what the heck the liberals' problem is?
If you've got John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Obama's nasty-face campaign staffers all out there gettin' all uppity about President Bush saying something - HE NEVER SAID - doesn't that bode poorly for their potential to handle an actual crisis someday?
I was on the road between DC and NYC last night listening to the debate on many of the news outlets... Mark Steyn actually said it best on Hannity and Colmes - but I have not yet been able to find the footage. But a close second had to be Newt's opening round with kool-aid drinker Alan Colmes... watch and learn people. Watch and learn... liberals are just thick-headed less than genius types and running circles around them gets really easy - when they make such bone-headed blunders...
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2008 |
|
When Liberals Argue Morality... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
10:22 PM |
 "Because I Could!" In one of his faux-faith appearances following his Presidency do you remember when Bill Clinton was asked WHY he felt like what he had done with Monica Lewinsky was morally objectionable? He didn't sight Biblical standards of marital fidelity, anything to honor God, church teaching, doctrine, or moral instruction from his folks... Why was what he had done wrong, "Because he could!" (Take advantage of an inferior employee...) Well now liberals on the other end of the spectrum are making the exact opposite point... And per usual - liberals' thinking is so skewed - BOTH extremes are 100% wrong... I'm so glad my parents were principled conservatives. Even if everyone disagrees with me, I've at least been given the advantage of knowing how to think... CLEARLY!
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 |
|
Hillary's Hallucinations... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
5:27 PM |
 sore loser Think about something for a moment. Dr. Jeremiah Wright RE-APPEARS, says even more darn loony things than he did before. Obama gets a whole week of horrid press out of the deal and even more questions get raised about Ayers, Rezko, etc.
Consider that polls showed Hillary surging during that time in North Carolina (where believe it or not she did take the lead briefly) AND in Indiana.
Consider that 25% of GOP voters in Indiana did NOT vote for their nominee - which means the power of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" was in full effect HELPING Hillary...
Consider that she challenged, cajoled, and egged on the Obama campaign on anything she could think of...
Consider that she won Indiana by barely 18,000 votes in a state where roughly 1.2 million votes were cast...
Consider that for the THIRD time in the election cycle she had to borrow money today ($6 million) to keep her campaign moving ahead... and Obama raised another $40 million or so from donors in the last month...
Consider that Obama has landed Super-delegates at the rate of 5 to 1 since Super Tuesday...
Now consider that within the last hour Hillary still insisted that she was the "stronger candidate" to face John McCain...
Considering all of that - I have come to the conclusive belief...
That Hillary Clinton and Paula Abdul must frequent the same crack dealer!
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 |
|
Ladies and Gents please welcome back your racially transcendent candidate... |
|
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough at
6:28 PM |
 Not my homie! Barack Obama has done exactly what he needed to do. Or did he...
“What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” said Obama, who added that Wright had shown “little regard for me” and seemed more concerned with “taking center stage.”
But suppose for a minute that IF Dr. Wright spoke truth when he reiterated the idea that Barack Obama would say whatever he needed to in order to get elected. Wouldn't logic then tell us that Obama would say exactly what he said today. Wouldn't it (wink wink, Dr. Wright, wink wink)?
|
|
|
|